Clean Water Act
The Government and Environmental Policy The purpose of the United States' public policy law is to implement restrictions in an effort to solve problems, which can be seen with the Clean Water Act. Public policy has also been employed to reform the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Although the United States government is noble in it's efforts to preserve the environment through these acts, the internal structure of public policy often retards these acts' effectiveness. This paper will explore the many ways in which factors such as horizontal implementation, divided government and other forms of public policy affect the environmental legislation involved with the aforementioned acts. The main factors involved with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 involve horizontal implementation structure and divided government. Before one can discuss how these policies affect environmental legislation, a brief description of each must first be lucidly explained. When our government was founded, a system of checks and balances was implemented between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to ensure that no one part of government gets too much power. Although this limits the power of any one person in government, it often slows down the
Nonetheless, the law is 'fundamentally sound' contends Michael J. Although these processes do act in a system of governmental checks and balances as the founders of this country wished, the effectiveness of the acts take many years of careful compromising to become significant. So far, the act has been successful in helping to re- establish populations of the American alligator, the California condor, the Black-footed ferret, and many species of endangered sea turtles. Legislation which would continue our efforts to raise water quality, but which would do so through extreme and needless overspending, does not serve the public interest. Redistributive involves heavy concern with governmental economics. 71) As the above quote clearly shows, the dissension between the different branches of government and different administrations associated with these branches can cripple the legislation necessary to pass an act such as the Endangered Species Act. 1) The Act's goals as set forth by Congress was to eliminate toxic discharge into significant bodies of water by 1985, improve water quality for marine and freshwater life by 1983, and for all "toxic pollutants in toxic amounts" into water. There is a much better way to get this job done. But hundreds of other species are waiting to be helped by the act, at a prospective cost of $4. Like the ESA, the act helps preserve endangered and threatened species, but it's primary purpose is to sustain the quality of the environment by keeping our waters free from pollutants as much as possible. ' As the rampart transformation of natural America for exurban development, water-division projects, and timber cutting- pushes more and more species to the wall, the act is embroiled in controversy unparalleled since its passage 19 years ago. Bean of the Environmental Defense Fund. Economic concerns prevented the act from first becoming a reality in 1968 by President Nixon.
Common topics in this essay:
Species Act,
Water Act,
Congress President,
President Nixon,
Justice Department,
Congressional Committees,
Wildlife Service,
Bean Horton,
endangered species,
United States',
endangered species act,
species act,
Secretary Commerce,
public policy,
water act,
clean water,
clean water act,
horizontal implementation,
fish wildlife service,
threatened species,
endangered threatened,
species act 1973,
act 1973,
protected species,
endangered threatened species,
|
Acceptance Essays
